KETHA SUJATHAMMA Vs. B RAMMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 in LGOP. No. 4 of 1996 before the Special tribunal under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, (Principal district Judge), Nellore are the petitioners herein. A Writ of Certiorari is sought for against the orders passed by the Special tribunal as above in LGOP. No. 4 of 1996 dated 01. 08. 2007 as confirmed by the special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad in lga. No. 21 of 2007 dated 04. 11. 2008.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: respondents 1 to 3 herein filed LGOP. No. 4 of 1996 under the Andhra Pradesh land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act') for recovery of schedule property, which is Plot No. 213 at Bhaktavatsala Nagar, admeasuring an extent of 33-1/3 ankanams of vacant site in Sy. Nos. 440, 441, 431, 438 and 439. The aforesaid land grabbing case was filed on the allegations that originally the petition schedule property was allotted to the father of the respondents 1 and 2 herein and husband of the third respondent by name Bhashyam Narayanaiah on 11. 08. 1980, by the Government on usual market value and that the possession was delivered and he constructed a thatched house. Afterwards, the said Narayanaiah fell ill and was shifted for treatment to some other village and during the non-occupation of the said house by him and the respondents 1 to 3, the petitioners herein forcibly occupied the said house by demolishing the same and constructed a new house and as such, are land grabbers. The petitioners herein filed a counter denying any grant of patta to Narayanaiah and also denying his possession. In turn, the petitioners claimed that the father of the first petitioner herein was granted patta by the Tahsildar, Nellore and the revenue authorities put them in possession and as such they claimed that they are not land grabbers and are occupying the property of their own.

(3.) THE Special Tribunal, after following the procedure prescribed under the act, has taken cognizance of the land grabbing case and after noticing the rival pleadings framed the following issues for consideration: